Democratic leaders throw cold water on proposal to expand Supreme Court

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Washington Post

Democratic leaders on Thursday expressed opposition to a proposal from a group of liberal lawmakers that would expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, underscoring tensions within the party over how to address concerns that the nation’s highest court will remain reliably conservative for years to come.

The goal of the legislation, which was introduced in both chambers, is to allow Democrats to appoint more liberal justices by expanding the court’s size rather than waiting for vacancies on the bench, a move Republicans derided as court-packing.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she has “no plans” to bring the bill to the floor and that she supports a commission created by President Biden that will produce a report this year on possible changes to the court, including expansion and term limits.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), whose panel has oversight of the judicial branch, also said he is not ready to support such legislation.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democratic-leaders-throw-cold-water-on-proposal-to-expand-supreme-court/ar-BB1fHm22?li=BBnb7Kz

---

Let the commission do its work first.

[TheRealNorth]

1. If Sinema and Manchin are not going to vote to expand the USSC...

What is the point?

[rpannier]

7. Because it gets it out there. You have people talking about it

Some changes require a willingness to keep pushing even in the fate of probable defeat
In the 70's people snickered at the forced birthers.
Their desire to end abortion and overturn Roe v Wade was "Never gonna happen."
They're pretty damned close now

[hadEnuf]

2. That's too bad that we are going to let the fascist GOP fuck us again.

[JudyM]

3. How about if we get rid of the 3 with the shortest tenure.

[wnylib]

4. I'm ok with that, but how can it be done? Once they are

confirmed and sworn in, the justices are there for life, until they choose to retire.

[JudyM]

9. Guess we need our best liberal legal minds on that one.

Lying under oath ought to be a start.

[brooklynite]

13. The best liberal legal minds will tell you exactly that.

Judges are given lifetime tenure to avoid political pressure. If you want to change that policy, change the Constitution.

[JudyM]

14. Political pressure is one thing, but Supreme Court partisanship is quite another. Needs a remedy.

[brooklynite]

15. The need is not the point; the solution remains the same.

2/3 of the Senate; 3/5 of the States.

[JudyM]

16. Prosecuting lying under oath is what I was suggesting

Or anything else better legal minds can devise.

I understand we can’t change the constitution at this point in time, unfortunately when we most need to.

[ancianita]

5. For now. A lot can still happen in a year.

[Polybius]

8. True, but it needs 60 votes to pass

It’s never gonna happen.

[rpannier]

6. a move Republicans derided as court-packing.

The republikkans call everything the Democrats do as far as the Courts go as "Court Packing".
Don't really care what they think

[NullTuples]

10. Another "off the table"?

[tirebiter]

11. Sounds like it's still very much on the menu

[Polybius]

12. Yeah, but we'll have to gamble after 2022

We need 60 votes now, or just two more votes to eliminate the filibuster. So those elections will determine it. We can pick up two or three Senate seats, but I'm worried about losing the House. If we do, it's pointless.